Fazio v. Ford Motor Corp.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1979 |
| Citation | 415 N.Y.S.2d 889,69 A.D.2d 896 |
| Parties | Louisa FAZIO et al., Respondents, v. FORD MOTOR CORP., Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
MacCarthy, Schultz & Mulholland, New York City (Joseph D. Ahearn, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
Goldstein & Martin, New York City (James D. Kakoullis, Jack Martin and Helen E. Goldstein, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Before TITONE, J. P., and SHAPIRO, MARTUSCELLO and MANGANO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action Inter alia to recover damages for breach of warranty, defendant appeals, as limited by its notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 8, 1978, as granted plaintiffs' motion to strike and dismiss the defense of the bar of the Statute of Limitations (paragraphs 17, 28 and 33 of the answer) and denied its cross motion for summary judgment as to the breach of warranty cause of action.
Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the plaintiffs' motion to strike paragraphs 17, 28 and 33 of the defendant's answer is denied and the defendant's cross motion for summary judgment is granted as to the breach of warranty cause of action, and any derivative cause of action predicated thereon.
The Statute of Limitations for the cause of action for breach of warranty accrued at the time of the original sale of the Ford automobile in 1964, regardless of when the injury was sustained (see Rivera v. Berkeley Super Wash, 44 A.D.2d 316, 354 N.Y.S.2d 654, affd. 37 N.Y.2d 395, 373 N.Y.S.2d 39, 335 N.E.2d 275). If the sale occurred prior to September 27, 1964 the effective date of the Uniform Commercial Code then the six-year period of limitations applies (see CPLR 213, subd. 2). If the sale occurred after September 27, 1964, the four-year period of limitations applies (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 2-725). In either event, however, the period of limitations expired long before the instant action was commenced on February 2, 1977. Therefore, summary judgment is granted to the defendant on this cause of action.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heller v. U.S. Suzuki Motor Corp.
...that some third party sells it to plaintiff (Doyle v. Happy Tumbler Wash-O-Mat, 90 A.D.2d 366, 457 N.Y.S.2d 85; Fazio v. Ford Motor Corp., 69 A.D.2d 896, 415 N.Y.S.2d 889; 1 Weinberger, New York Products Liability § 11.04; cf. Rosenau v. City of New Brunswick, 93 N.J.Super. 49, 224 A.2d 689......
-
Rockwell v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Co.
...1978), aff'd., 48 N.Y.2d 664, 421 N.Y. S.2d 879, 397 N.E.2d 390 (1979); Victorson v. Bock Laundry, supra; Fazio v. Ford Motor Co., 69 A.D.2d 896, 415 N.Y.S.2d 889 (1st Dep't 1979). The limitation period contained in the code is four years from the date of the breach. The breach occurs when ......
-
Jackson v. Eddy's Li RV Ctr., Inc.
...at issue is for the sale of goods and is therefore governed by the UCC. N.Y. CPLR 213; see e.g., Fazio v. Ford Motor Corp., 69 A.D.2d 896, 415 N.Y.S.2d 889, 890 (2d Dep't 1979). Thus, each of Plaintiff's claims is governed by a four year statute of limitations. As to accrual of claims alleg......
-
Burns v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
...(2d Dep't.1978). Any detrimental reliance by plaintiff would have occurred when his vehicle was purchased. Fazio v. Ford Motor Corp., 69 A.D.2d 896, 415 N.Y.S.2d 889 (2d Dep't.1979); Murphy v. General Motors Corp., 55 A.D.2d 486, 391 N.Y.S.2d 24 (3rd Dep't.1977). Richard Burns purchased his......